Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Beim Laden dieses Videos ist ein Problem aufgetreten. Dies könnte an einem vorübergehenden Netzwerkproblem liegen oder das Video ist möglicherweise nicht verfügbar.

🚨 MAJOR FUEL POLICY SHIFT IN THE WORKS! Central Govt is seriously considering UNBLENDED ETHANOL-FREE PETROL option at pumps! 🤯 Biggest hurdle: Cracking the PRICING formula. Separate dispensers, maintenance & stock management will spike costs. -> After smashing E20 targets early (saving billions in imports + boosting farmers), this... show more

The Analyzer (News Updates🗞️)

146,010 subscribers

639,249 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat •via X (Twitter)

Wissenschaft & Technologie Nachrichten & Politik Gesundheit & Wellness

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

VIDEO | Delhi: Addressing a press conference, AAP national convenor Arvind Kejriwal, says, "At today's town hall, people put forward three demands. First, consumers should have a choice at petrol pumps... those who want E20 fuel should be able to buy E20, while those who prefer pure petrol should have the option to purchase pure petrol. Second, the price of E20 fuel should be lower than that of pure petrol. Third, with global crude oil prices having declined, the retail price of petrol should be reduced to below Rs 84 per litre. If ethanol is not beneficial from any perspective, why is it being promoted? People are facing difficulties because of ethanol. It is more expensive than petrol, delivers lower mileage, does not benefit farmers, and does not save foreign exchange. Moreover, in areas surrounding ethanol production plants, groundwater reportedly becomes polluted. So why is the central government pushing ethanol across the country by presenting misleading figures and against the wishes of the people? Why is it forcing it upon citizens? What is the Modi government's compulsion or hidden agenda? After examining the issue, it is being done under pressure from America." #E20 #Ethanol #ArvindKejriwal (Full video available on PTI Videos -

VIDEO | Delhi: Addressing a press conference, AAP national convenor Arvind Kejriwal, says, "At today's town hall, people put forward three demands. First, consumers should have a choice at petrol pumps... those who want E20 fuel should be able to buy E20, while those who prefer pure petrol should have the option to purchase pure petrol. Second, the price of E20 fuel should be lower than that of pure petrol. Third, with global crude oil prices having declined, the retail price of petrol should be reduced to below Rs 84 per litre. If ethanol is not beneficial from any perspective, why is it being promoted? People are facing difficulties because of ethanol. It is more expensive than petrol, delivers lower mileage, does not benefit farmers, and does not save foreign exchange. Moreover, in areas surrounding ethanol production plants, groundwater reportedly becomes polluted. So why is the central government pushing ethanol across the country by presenting misleading figures and against the wishes of the people? Why is it forcing it upon citizens? What is the Modi government's compulsion or hidden agenda? After examining the issue, it is being done under pressure from America." #E20 #Ethanol #ArvindKejriwal (Full video available on PTI Videos -

Press Trust of India

67,669 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

XP100 TEST SHOWS WHY E20 ANGER IS REAL 🚨 A creator tested 5 litres of normal E20 against 5 litres of XP100 with zero ethanol in the same Skoda Slavia, keeping the route and cruising speed almost identical. E20 ran around 97 km. XP100 ran 116 km. That is 19.4 km/l vs 23.2 km/l. Important caveat: XP100 is high-octane performance fuel with additives, so this is not a perfect lab test of normal pure petrol vs E20. OPINION: If fuel changes mileage this much, give people a choice at petrol pumps. Do not force E20 on everyone and then call complaints propaganda.

XP100 TEST SHOWS WHY E20 ANGER IS REAL 🚨 A creator tested 5 litres of normal E20 against 5 litres of XP100 with zero ethanol in the same Skoda Slavia, keeping the route and cruising speed almost identical. E20 ran around 97 km. XP100 ran 116 km. That is 19.4 km/l vs 23.2 km/l. Important caveat: XP100 is high-octane performance fuel with additives, so this is not a perfect lab test of normal pure petrol vs E20. OPINION: If fuel changes mileage this much, give people a choice at petrol pumps. Do not force E20 on everyone and then call complaints propaganda.

Mr Sharma

259,963 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

THE E20 DEBATE: FACTS VS HYPOCRISY. HERE'S AN UNDENIABLE FACT: The E20 programme did not begin under the Modi government. Ethanol blending was approved years earlier, during the UPA. The difference is in execution. Blending remained stuck at roughly 1–1.5% for years before accelerating significantly under the NDA. So, let's first get the politics out of the way. If ethanol blending was acceptable in principle then, why is it suddenly portrayed as anti-people now? Now, let's look at the arguments being presented by critics: CRITICS ARGUMENT 1: E20 FUEL IS BEING PUSHED BY NDA TO KEEP SUGAR CANE FARMERS HAPPY. There's no doubt Ethanol is creating an additional income stream for sugarcane farmers. But governments have always handed out subsidies or incentives to farmers. + MSP exists for 23 crops. Sugar cane farmers get SAP or State Advised Price. + Fertiliser subsidies. + Cheap or free electricity. + Irrigation subsidies. + Procurement policies. If these benefits to farmers are accepted as legitimate public policy, why is E20 policy being targeted in isolation for market distortion? CRITICS ARGUMENT 2: ETHANOL PRODUCTION IS WATER CONSUMING. Yes, sugarcane consumes a great deal of water. But so do + Paddy cultivators. Just look at the tumbling water tables in Punjab, Haryana. + AI and data centers. + Semiconductor manufacturing. + Steel and cement production. The question is not whether something uses water, but whether the benefits justify the costs. Again why are critics holding E20 alone to a test that they don't set for others? CRITICS ARGUMENT 3: THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT MAKE E20 MANDATORY. LEAVE IT TO CHOICE. We're in a democracy and choice matters. But governments routinely make decisions that we, the people have no choice but to accept. + Taxation rates + Emission norms. + Fuel quality standards. + Safety regulations. + Identity Proof. These are often choices imposed to achieve broader national goals. Shouldn't E20 should be judged in the same way? Here's how E20 usage serves NATIONAL INTEREST: + India imports 85–90% of its crude oil. E20 seeks to address that by replacing up to 20% of petrol volume with domestically produced ethanol, helping diversify the fuel mix and reducing import costs. + With E20 NDA estimates saving Rs 1 lakh crore in foreign-exchange. CRITICS ARGUMENT 4: COST OF CAR ENGINE WEAR AND TEAR, MILEAGE INEFFICIENCY OUTWEIGHS BENEFITS. It is true that Ethanol has about 34% less energy per litre than petrol. But because E20 contains only 20% ethanol, the overall energy content of the fuel falls by roughly 4%–7%. So at 5% a car that gives 20 km/L on pure petrol will give 19km/L. But usage also improves air quality. Which increases longevity in humans and lowers healthcare costs over time. That is s fair trade-off. CONCLUSION: Every policy is a trade off. E20 isn't perfect. But if agricultural subsidies, procurement, irrigation policy and fuel regulations are accepted as legitimate public policy, then judge ethanol using the same yardstick.

THE E20 DEBATE: FACTS VS HYPOCRISY. HERE'S AN UNDENIABLE FACT: The E20 programme did not begin under the Modi government. Ethanol blending was approved years earlier, during the UPA. The difference is in execution. Blending remained stuck at roughly 1–1.5% for years before accelerating significantly under the NDA. So, let's first get the politics out of the way. If ethanol blending was acceptable in principle then, why is it suddenly portrayed as anti-people now? Now, let's look at the arguments being presented by critics: CRITICS ARGUMENT 1: E20 FUEL IS BEING PUSHED BY NDA TO KEEP SUGAR CANE FARMERS HAPPY. There's no doubt Ethanol is creating an additional income stream for sugarcane farmers. But governments have always handed out subsidies or incentives to farmers. + MSP exists for 23 crops. Sugar cane farmers get SAP or State Advised Price. + Fertiliser subsidies. + Cheap or free electricity. + Irrigation subsidies. + Procurement policies. If these benefits to farmers are accepted as legitimate public policy, why is E20 policy being targeted in isolation for market distortion? CRITICS ARGUMENT 2: ETHANOL PRODUCTION IS WATER CONSUMING. Yes, sugarcane consumes a great deal of water. But so do + Paddy cultivators. Just look at the tumbling water tables in Punjab, Haryana. + AI and data centers. + Semiconductor manufacturing. + Steel and cement production. The question is not whether something uses water, but whether the benefits justify the costs. Again why are critics holding E20 alone to a test that they don't set for others? CRITICS ARGUMENT 3: THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT MAKE E20 MANDATORY. LEAVE IT TO CHOICE. We're in a democracy and choice matters. But governments routinely make decisions that we, the people have no choice but to accept. + Taxation rates + Emission norms. + Fuel quality standards. + Safety regulations. + Identity Proof. These are often choices imposed to achieve broader national goals. Shouldn't E20 should be judged in the same way? Here's how E20 usage serves NATIONAL INTEREST: + India imports 85–90% of its crude oil. E20 seeks to address that by replacing up to 20% of petrol volume with domestically produced ethanol, helping diversify the fuel mix and reducing import costs. + With E20 NDA estimates saving Rs 1 lakh crore in foreign-exchange. CRITICS ARGUMENT 4: COST OF CAR ENGINE WEAR AND TEAR, MILEAGE INEFFICIENCY OUTWEIGHS BENEFITS. It is true that Ethanol has about 34% less energy per litre than petrol. But because E20 contains only 20% ethanol, the overall energy content of the fuel falls by roughly 4%–7%. So at 5% a car that gives 20 km/L on pure petrol will give 19km/L. But usage also improves air quality. Which increases longevity in humans and lowers healthcare costs over time. That is s fair trade-off. CONCLUSION: Every policy is a trade off. E20 isn't perfect. But if agricultural subsidies, procurement, irrigation policy and fuel regulations are accepted as legitimate public policy, then judge ethanol using the same yardstick.

Rahul Shivshankar

270,286 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

“In a recent interview, Shri Nitin Gadkari ji said that if you want petrol without ethanol, it’s available you can fill ₹168-per-litre premium petrol. Today, I got my tank filled with that fuel. The bill? ₹7,800 for one tank. On a regular basis, I use E20, which costs me around ₹4,500–₹4,800 for a full tank. Even that is a significant expense. I drive nearly 2,000 kilometres every month, and fuel is already one of my biggest monthly costs. Now imagine asking an average middle-class family to spend nearly ₹8,000 every time they fill their tank. Is that really a choice? A choice exists only when the alternatives are reasonably accessible. If one option is priced so high that most people simply cannot afford it, then for the vast majority of citizens, there is effectively no choice at all. This isn’t about opposing ethanol. It’s about asking a simple question: Should affordability determine whether a citizen has access to conventional petrol? Many middle-class families are already managing rising household expenses, education costs, healthcare bills, and EMIs. Expecting them to absorb such a steep increase in fuel costs feels disconnected from the financial reality millions of Indians face. As citizens, we deserve policies that balance national objectives with consumer rights, affordability, and genuine freedom of choice. That is the conversation we should be having.” Bharat Bachao Aandolan Tehseen Poonawalla Official 🇮🇳 Dinesh Rattan Dhillon Nachiket Deshpande Ishaan Bharadwaj

“In a recent interview, Shri Nitin Gadkari ji said that if you want petrol without ethanol, it’s available you can fill ₹168-per-litre premium petrol. Today, I got my tank filled with that fuel. The bill? ₹7,800 for one tank. On a regular basis, I use E20, which costs me around ₹4,500–₹4,800 for a full tank. Even that is a significant expense. I drive nearly 2,000 kilometres every month, and fuel is already one of my biggest monthly costs. Now imagine asking an average middle-class family to spend nearly ₹8,000 every time they fill their tank. Is that really a choice? A choice exists only when the alternatives are reasonably accessible. If one option is priced so high that most people simply cannot afford it, then for the vast majority of citizens, there is effectively no choice at all. This isn’t about opposing ethanol. It’s about asking a simple question: Should affordability determine whether a citizen has access to conventional petrol? Many middle-class families are already managing rising household expenses, education costs, healthcare bills, and EMIs. Expecting them to absorb such a steep increase in fuel costs feels disconnected from the financial reality millions of Indians face. As citizens, we deserve policies that balance national objectives with consumer rights, affordability, and genuine freedom of choice. That is the conversation we should be having.” Bharat Bachao Aandolan Tehseen Poonawalla Official 🇮🇳 Dinesh Rattan Dhillon Nachiket Deshpande Ishaan Bharadwaj

Nidhhi Sharma

47,816 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

JAI HIND, JAI BHARAT! 🇮🇳 I Tehseen Poonawalla, on behalf of Team Bharat, am announcing a massive, uncompromising citizen's protest against the hasty implementation of the E20 (Ethanol 20%) Blending Policy. First of all, my deepest gratitude to every single citizen who supported us during the first phase of this protest. Your trust ensures that I am indebted to you for life. But the battle has just begun! Here are our 5 Non-Negotiable Demands regarding the E20 Policy: 1️⃣ Protect Older Vehicles: E10 petrol must be provided exclusively for cars manufactured before 2023 that are only E10 compatible. 2️⃣ Fair Pricing: Cut the price of E20 petrol by a straight 20%. Why should consumers pay full price for blended fuel? 3️⃣ Universal Availability of E0: Pure petrol (E0) must be available at every single petrol pump. Currently, it costs a exorbitant ₹165–₹170/litre. This must be slashed and made affordable! Remember, countries like Nepal (₹123/L), Bhutan (₹97/L), and Bangladesh (~₹112/L) buy petrol from India, yet they sell pure, ethanol-free petrol to their citizens far cheaper than we do! 4️⃣ Total Transparency: Publicize every single document, study, and agreement related to the Ethanol 20 blending policy immediately. 5️⃣ Compensation for Damage: Provide concrete solutions and compensation for vehicle owners facing massive engine issues and technical damage due to forced E20 fuel in pre-2023 cars. This fight will be fought ruthlessly across 3 Pillars: SADAK, SANSAD, aur SUPREME COURT! ✊ BUT LET ME MAKE THE RULES OF THIS PLATFORM ABSOLUTELY CLEAR: ❌ NO Politicians: No political leader from any party will be given a stage or space here. ❌ NO Chichoras, Flop Comedians, or Third grade wanna be actors: No 'panoutis' (jinxes) or opportunists will be allowed to revive their careers on our platform. ❌ NO Anti-Religious Abuse: Anyone who abuses Maryada Purushottam Bhagwan Ram or uses this stage for irrelevant agendas will be thrown out. ❌ NO Communal Hate: This stage will never be used to abuse Muslims or Hindus, nor will we tolerate divisive communal slogans. 🎯 This is a platform for EVERY INDIAN: Whether Brahmin or Dalit, man or woman, or third gender ! If you are a citizen harmed by Ethanol, this is your voice! NOW, LET'S TALK ABOUT THE ACCUSATIONS & THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST: Shri Nitin Gadkari ji is running a "Beta Bachao Yojana"! His family is deeply entrenched in companies like CIAN Agro Industries and MANAS. This is a blatant, textbook case of Conflict of Interest where the Minister formulating the Ethanol policy has family businesses directly benefiting from it! Threaten me all you want, Gadkari ji unlike other political leaders, Tehseen Poonawalla does NOT fear your threats and I WILL NOT APOLOGIZE. I stand firmly by my words! And as for Dharmendra Pradhan ji he is undisputedly the Worst Education Minister in Indian History. He is a pure 'Nepo Kid' who only holds a cabinet position because his late father was a Union Minister in Atal Bihari Vajpayee ji's cabinet. Look at his brilliant 'ideas' to stop paper leaks: using the Air Force to distribute exam papers and banning Telegram! Does Dharmendra Pradhan ji not realize that paper leaks easily happen over WhatsApp and Signal too? He has completely ruined the education system and HE MUST GO! While we demand that Nitin Gadkari, Hardeep Puri, and Dharmendra Pradhan must resign and go, let it be clear: our ultimate focus remains fixed on fixing the disastrous E20 policy. Join the movement. Our Vehicles. Our Livelihoods. Our Voice. Jai Hind. Jai Bharat. 🇮🇳 #E20Protest #SadakSansadSupremeCourt #TeamBharat #NitinGadkari #DharmendraPradhan #EthanolScam #ConsumersFirst BETA BADHAO YOJNA SUGAR DADDY Dinesh Rattan Dhillon Nidhhi Sharma Vishal Singh Jain Ishaan Bharadwaj Shanky Ram Nachiket Deshpande

JAI HIND, JAI BHARAT! 🇮🇳 I Tehseen Poonawalla, on behalf of Team Bharat, am announcing a massive, uncompromising citizen's protest against the hasty implementation of the E20 (Ethanol 20%) Blending Policy. First of all, my deepest gratitude to every single citizen who supported us during the first phase of this protest. Your trust ensures that I am indebted to you for life. But the battle has just begun! Here are our 5 Non-Negotiable Demands regarding the E20 Policy: 1️⃣ Protect Older Vehicles: E10 petrol must be provided exclusively for cars manufactured before 2023 that are only E10 compatible. 2️⃣ Fair Pricing: Cut the price of E20 petrol by a straight 20%. Why should consumers pay full price for blended fuel? 3️⃣ Universal Availability of E0: Pure petrol (E0) must be available at every single petrol pump. Currently, it costs a exorbitant ₹165–₹170/litre. This must be slashed and made affordable! Remember, countries like Nepal (₹123/L), Bhutan (₹97/L), and Bangladesh (~₹112/L) buy petrol from India, yet they sell pure, ethanol-free petrol to their citizens far cheaper than we do! 4️⃣ Total Transparency: Publicize every single document, study, and agreement related to the Ethanol 20 blending policy immediately. 5️⃣ Compensation for Damage: Provide concrete solutions and compensation for vehicle owners facing massive engine issues and technical damage due to forced E20 fuel in pre-2023 cars. This fight will be fought ruthlessly across 3 Pillars: SADAK, SANSAD, aur SUPREME COURT! ✊ BUT LET ME MAKE THE RULES OF THIS PLATFORM ABSOLUTELY CLEAR: ❌ NO Politicians: No political leader from any party will be given a stage or space here. ❌ NO Chichoras, Flop Comedians, or Third grade wanna be actors: No 'panoutis' (jinxes) or opportunists will be allowed to revive their careers on our platform. ❌ NO Anti-Religious Abuse: Anyone who abuses Maryada Purushottam Bhagwan Ram or uses this stage for irrelevant agendas will be thrown out. ❌ NO Communal Hate: This stage will never be used to abuse Muslims or Hindus, nor will we tolerate divisive communal slogans. 🎯 This is a platform for EVERY INDIAN: Whether Brahmin or Dalit, man or woman, or third gender ! If you are a citizen harmed by Ethanol, this is your voice! NOW, LET'S TALK ABOUT THE ACCUSATIONS & THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST: Shri Nitin Gadkari ji is running a "Beta Bachao Yojana"! His family is deeply entrenched in companies like CIAN Agro Industries and MANAS. This is a blatant, textbook case of Conflict of Interest where the Minister formulating the Ethanol policy has family businesses directly benefiting from it! Threaten me all you want, Gadkari ji unlike other political leaders, Tehseen Poonawalla does NOT fear your threats and I WILL NOT APOLOGIZE. I stand firmly by my words! And as for Dharmendra Pradhan ji he is undisputedly the Worst Education Minister in Indian History. He is a pure 'Nepo Kid' who only holds a cabinet position because his late father was a Union Minister in Atal Bihari Vajpayee ji's cabinet. Look at his brilliant 'ideas' to stop paper leaks: using the Air Force to distribute exam papers and banning Telegram! Does Dharmendra Pradhan ji not realize that paper leaks easily happen over WhatsApp and Signal too? He has completely ruined the education system and HE MUST GO! While we demand that Nitin Gadkari, Hardeep Puri, and Dharmendra Pradhan must resign and go, let it be clear: our ultimate focus remains fixed on fixing the disastrous E20 policy. Join the movement. Our Vehicles. Our Livelihoods. Our Voice. Jai Hind. Jai Bharat. 🇮🇳 #E20Protest #SadakSansadSupremeCourt #TeamBharat #NitinGadkari #DharmendraPradhan #EthanolScam #ConsumersFirst BETA BADHAO YOJNA SUGAR DADDY Dinesh Rattan Dhillon Nidhhi Sharma Vishal Singh Jain Ishaan Bharadwaj Shanky Ram Nachiket Deshpande

Tehseen Poonawalla Official 🇮🇳

62,997 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Tehseen Poonawalla is absolutely right & must be supported by everyone univocally on this issue. If you don’t support him, you risk your valuable vehicles which are at risk now. The forced E20 ethanol blending policy has become a textbook case of conflict of interest, lack of transparency, and disregard for the common citizen. How people of India are being treated as Guinea pigs for trials and how their only precious asset a 2,3 or 4 wheeler is risked is appalling, brazen and shames less and that to benefit Mr Gadkari’s son 😡 While Union Minister Nitin Gadkari aggressively pushes mandatory E20 — claiming it helps farmers and cuts imports — his own sons reportedly have direct business interests in ethanol distilleries that have seen massive revenue surges. Petroleum Minister Hardeep Singh Puri defends it by comparing our daily drivers to racing cars and downplays mileage drops, engine wear, and the complete absence of consumer choice. This is unacceptable. Citizens have every right to choose between E20 and regular petrol. Old cars, new cars, bikes — all are being forced into an untested rollout without proper public disclosure of ARAI reports or impact studies. When policy benefits connected businesses while harming vehicle owners and wallets, accountability must follow. Let’s take a note of the fact that ICICI Lombard has refused to settle claims for issues related to vehicle damages in this context. Tehseen’s demand is fully justified — Nitin Gadkari and Hardeep Singh Puri must be sacked, without further delay. The people of India deserve transparency, choice, and ministers who put the nation before family business interests. Tehseen Poonawalla Official 🇮🇳 #EthanolScam #E20Petrol #SackGadkari #ConsumerRights #MyCarMyChoice

Tehseen Poonawalla is absolutely right & must be supported by everyone univocally on this issue. If you don’t support him, you risk your valuable vehicles which are at risk now. The forced E20 ethanol blending policy has become a textbook case of conflict of interest, lack of transparency, and disregard for the common citizen. How people of India are being treated as Guinea pigs for trials and how their only precious asset a 2,3 or 4 wheeler is risked is appalling, brazen and shames less and that to benefit Mr Gadkari’s son 😡 While Union Minister Nitin Gadkari aggressively pushes mandatory E20 — claiming it helps farmers and cuts imports — his own sons reportedly have direct business interests in ethanol distilleries that have seen massive revenue surges. Petroleum Minister Hardeep Singh Puri defends it by comparing our daily drivers to racing cars and downplays mileage drops, engine wear, and the complete absence of consumer choice. This is unacceptable. Citizens have every right to choose between E20 and regular petrol. Old cars, new cars, bikes — all are being forced into an untested rollout without proper public disclosure of ARAI reports or impact studies. When policy benefits connected businesses while harming vehicle owners and wallets, accountability must follow. Let’s take a note of the fact that ICICI Lombard has refused to settle claims for issues related to vehicle damages in this context. Tehseen’s demand is fully justified — Nitin Gadkari and Hardeep Singh Puri must be sacked, without further delay. The people of India deserve transparency, choice, and ministers who put the nation before family business interests. Tehseen Poonawalla Official 🇮🇳 #EthanolScam #E20Petrol #SackGadkari #ConsumerRights #MyCarMyChoice

Pragnya Gupta

21,165 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Could the fuel crisis in Russia break the back of the Russian war economy? It has already evolved from a problem into a systemic vulnerability. Strikes on oil refineries have put at risk the domestic infrastructure essential to the day-to-day functioning of the Russian state. A symbolic and practical turning point was the strike on the Omsk refinery - Russia's largest refinery and one of its key producers of gasoline and diesel. After the attack, the refinery halted processing. The Moscow refinery in Kapotnya, the largest fuel supplier to the capital region, is unlikely to resume operations before at least the end of the year following strikes in June. Estimates of the scale of the damage vary, but they point to the same trend: Ukraine is no longer merely carrying out isolated strikes on individual targets but is creating a cumulative effect in which Russia's repair capacity is beginning to fall behind the pace of damage. The most vulnerable point in this crisis is the agricultural sector. The harvest has coincided with peak summer fuel demand, making diesel a critical resource. Russia's harvesting campaign in early July was running one to two weeks behind last year's pace, with weather and fuel supply problems cited among the reasons. Crops are being harvested late, grain quality is deteriorating, and logistics costs are rising. As expected, large agricultural holdings - which have stockpiles, long-term contracts, access to the wholesale market, and administrative channels - are faring better. Small and medium-sized farmers, by contrast, are likely to go bankrupt. The Russian authorities continue largely to deny the problem, but in practice they are shifting toward emergency management of the shortage. The first set of measures involves a ban on diesel exports and the start of fuel imports. For a country accustomed to presenting itself as an energy superpower, the very need to import petroleum products is humiliating. The second set of measures is the degradation of standards. The Russian government has allowed the use of Euro-3 gasoline until the end of 2026, and parliament has passed tax changes that permit the use of lower-quality components for blending straight-run gasoline, postpone part of the refinery modernization, and provide for subsidies for fuel imports. The third set of measures is administrative rationing. In June, most Russian regions introduced some form of restriction on gasoline or diesel sales: volume limits, unreliable fuel availability, pumps marked "out of service," lines, and periodic disruptions at gas stations. In the medium term, the worst effects may emerge not only in the 2026 harvest but also in the next agricultural cycle - primarily during the 2027 sowing season. The fuel crisis has only just begun, but the most interesting period still lies ahead: seasonal demand peaks in August and September. The future of Russia's war economy will depend primarily on the balance between the pace of Ukrainian strikes, the effectiveness of Russian air defenses, and the ability of repair crews to restore refinery operations. If that balance continues to shift against Russia, the fuel crisis could create conditions in which the Russian authorities would want to end the war. 📹: Fiery footage of attacks on the Moscow oil refinery and other targets in Russia

Could the fuel crisis in Russia break the back of the Russian war economy? It has already evolved from a problem into a systemic vulnerability. Strikes on oil refineries have put at risk the domestic infrastructure essential to the day-to-day functioning of the Russian state. A symbolic and practical turning point was the strike on the Omsk refinery - Russia's largest refinery and one of its key producers of gasoline and diesel. After the attack, the refinery halted processing. The Moscow refinery in Kapotnya, the largest fuel supplier to the capital region, is unlikely to resume operations before at least the end of the year following strikes in June. Estimates of the scale of the damage vary, but they point to the same trend: Ukraine is no longer merely carrying out isolated strikes on individual targets but is creating a cumulative effect in which Russia's repair capacity is beginning to fall behind the pace of damage. The most vulnerable point in this crisis is the agricultural sector. The harvest has coincided with peak summer fuel demand, making diesel a critical resource. Russia's harvesting campaign in early July was running one to two weeks behind last year's pace, with weather and fuel supply problems cited among the reasons. Crops are being harvested late, grain quality is deteriorating, and logistics costs are rising. As expected, large agricultural holdings - which have stockpiles, long-term contracts, access to the wholesale market, and administrative channels - are faring better. Small and medium-sized farmers, by contrast, are likely to go bankrupt. The Russian authorities continue largely to deny the problem, but in practice they are shifting toward emergency management of the shortage. The first set of measures involves a ban on diesel exports and the start of fuel imports. For a country accustomed to presenting itself as an energy superpower, the very need to import petroleum products is humiliating. The second set of measures is the degradation of standards. The Russian government has allowed the use of Euro-3 gasoline until the end of 2026, and parliament has passed tax changes that permit the use of lower-quality components for blending straight-run gasoline, postpone part of the refinery modernization, and provide for subsidies for fuel imports. The third set of measures is administrative rationing. In June, most Russian regions introduced some form of restriction on gasoline or diesel sales: volume limits, unreliable fuel availability, pumps marked "out of service," lines, and periodic disruptions at gas stations. In the medium term, the worst effects may emerge not only in the 2026 harvest but also in the next agricultural cycle - primarily during the 2027 sowing season. The fuel crisis has only just begun, but the most interesting period still lies ahead: seasonal demand peaks in August and September. The future of Russia's war economy will depend primarily on the balance between the pace of Ukrainian strikes, the effectiveness of Russian air defenses, and the ability of repair crews to restore refinery operations. If that balance continues to shift against Russia, the fuel crisis could create conditions in which the Russian authorities would want to end the war. 📹: Fiery footage of attacks on the Moscow oil refinery and other targets in Russia

Anton Gerashchenko

544,564 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

🚨 Truflation has recorded a sharp drop (-0.73%) in U.S. inflation over the past few days. Yes, it is real. 🇺🇸 But what does this mean exactly, and how does it relate to upcoming BLS prints? 📽️ The video explains crystal clear how our inflation rate has consistently led BLS trend changes throughout 2024—and what this might signal for 2025. But first… why has this drop occurred? According to Truflation data, the biggest drivers behind this move were: 📉 Transportation Costs Stabilizing – Fuel prices, shipping costs, and logistical expenses have eased, reducing inflationary pressure. ⚡ Utilities Prices Cooling – Energy markets have become more stable, slowing the rise in electricity and gas costs. 🏡 Housing Market Adjustments – Rental price increases have moderated, and housing-related costs are no longer surging at the same pace. 🌍 Supply Chain Normalization – Global supply chains have improved, making pricing more predictable in previously disrupted sectors. 💳 Consumer Behavior Adjustments – Higher interest rates and economic conditions have slowed demand, reducing price pressures in key categories. Interpreting the Trend This decline signals a shift in inflationary momentum, but it does not necessarily indicate broad-based deflation. Instead, it reflects: ✅ Easing cost pressures in sectors that previously saw rapid price hikes. ✅ A mathematical effect from year-over-year calculations at the start of the month. To understand where inflation is heading, month-over-month trends will be crucial—determining whether this is part of a sustained disinflationary trend or just a temporary adjustment. So if history rhymes… The BLS typically catches up to us ~45 days later (sometimes even more), unless they get creative with the numbers 🧐. But here’s an important distinction to remember: We don’t aim to replicate BLS numbers—we have our own methodology for calculating CPI. While absolute values won’t match, the trends do. 📈📉 That’s why Truflation is a leading indicator (RT + 30 Million data points + uploaded in the blockchain), helping you anticipate where BLS inflation prints will pivot—and for how long they’ll stay on the same trend. Transparency and real-time data will be critical this year, especially for FED policy decisions. The government’s handling of tariffs and economic policy could have major implications.🌋 And we’ll be here to report it—up to two months before official data drops. — Truflation Team 🫡🇺🇸

🚨 Truflation has recorded a sharp drop (-0.73%) in U.S. inflation over the past few days. Yes, it is real. 🇺🇸 But what does this mean exactly, and how does it relate to upcoming BLS prints? 📽️ The video explains crystal clear how our inflation rate has consistently led BLS trend changes throughout 2024—and what this might signal for 2025. But first… why has this drop occurred? According to Truflation data, the biggest drivers behind this move were: 📉 Transportation Costs Stabilizing – Fuel prices, shipping costs, and logistical expenses have eased, reducing inflationary pressure. ⚡ Utilities Prices Cooling – Energy markets have become more stable, slowing the rise in electricity and gas costs. 🏡 Housing Market Adjustments – Rental price increases have moderated, and housing-related costs are no longer surging at the same pace. 🌍 Supply Chain Normalization – Global supply chains have improved, making pricing more predictable in previously disrupted sectors. 💳 Consumer Behavior Adjustments – Higher interest rates and economic conditions have slowed demand, reducing price pressures in key categories. Interpreting the Trend This decline signals a shift in inflationary momentum, but it does not necessarily indicate broad-based deflation. Instead, it reflects: ✅ Easing cost pressures in sectors that previously saw rapid price hikes. ✅ A mathematical effect from year-over-year calculations at the start of the month. To understand where inflation is heading, month-over-month trends will be crucial—determining whether this is part of a sustained disinflationary trend or just a temporary adjustment. So if history rhymes… The BLS typically catches up to us ~45 days later (sometimes even more), unless they get creative with the numbers 🧐. But here’s an important distinction to remember: We don’t aim to replicate BLS numbers—we have our own methodology for calculating CPI. While absolute values won’t match, the trends do. 📈📉 That’s why Truflation is a leading indicator (RT + 30 Million data points + uploaded in the blockchain), helping you anticipate where BLS inflation prints will pivot—and for how long they’ll stay on the same trend. Transparency and real-time data will be critical this year, especially for FED policy decisions. The government’s handling of tariffs and economic policy could have major implications.🌋 And we’ll be here to report it—up to two months before official data drops. — Truflation Team 🫡🇺🇸

Truflation

254,037 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

CHINESE ENGINEERS JUST WROTE CLAUDE SCRIPT AND TURNED $6.02 INTO $3.3 MILLION ON POLYMARKET Nobody tells you about them and you still think this is a person placing bets manually I guess. Let me disappoint you, this is a fully automated script built by Chinese engineers 100%. This is true. They called it PHANTOM X. It runs completely through Claude. Their account here: Result: $6.02 -> $3,354,000. Win rate 71%. Biggest win: $179,000 (single bet). I’m copying their trades here: (Just added their wallet to TG bot 0xee613b3fc183ee44f9da9c05f53e2da107e3debf, it's so easy) How the bot works: -> It simultaneously tracks thousands of sports markets on Polymarket and Kalshi. -> Finds discrepancies between the platforms. -> Enters positions faster than any human could imo. Just three strategies in one: -- Pairs Trading: the bot sees YES on the Rockets at $0.62 while NO is at $0.41. Total = $1.03 instead of $1.00. That’s a 3% risk-free profit. It enters automatically within milliseconds. -- Sentiment AI: scans Twitter (X) and news in real time. If something big breaks, it recalculates the probability in 2 seconds before the market reacts. -- Calendar + Volatility: 15–20 minutes before the game, volatility spikes. The bot takes positions early and closes after the first major move. Why sports is perfect? Sports O/U markets have clear paired contracts that should total exactly $1.00, but constant deviations create reliable arbitrage. This is exactly how [sovereign2013] built $3.35M. > A human physically cannot monitor 50+ markets at once, react in milliseconds, stay awake 24/7, avoid emotions after losses, and run Z-scores on 60 bars of data. > The bot does all of this in parallel without breaks. Manual trading is dying. The automation era has arrived. Start learning Claude now. If you’re interested in writing your own bot on Polymarket: Comment the word "BOT" Like and repost this post Follow me (so I can message you easly) And within 24 hours I will send you a full manual on how to build a bot that can earn $2,900+/month. Also SAVE this info and article.

CHINESE ENGINEERS JUST WROTE CLAUDE SCRIPT AND TURNED $6.02 INTO $3.3 MILLION ON POLYMARKET Nobody tells you about them and you still think this is a person placing bets manually I guess. Let me disappoint you, this is a fully automated script built by Chinese engineers 100%. This is true. They called it PHANTOM X. It runs completely through Claude. Their account here: Result: $6.02 -> $3,354,000. Win rate 71%. Biggest win: $179,000 (single bet). I’m copying their trades here: (Just added their wallet to TG bot 0xee613b3fc183ee44f9da9c05f53e2da107e3debf, it's so easy) How the bot works: -> It simultaneously tracks thousands of sports markets on Polymarket and Kalshi. -> Finds discrepancies between the platforms. -> Enters positions faster than any human could imo. Just three strategies in one: -- Pairs Trading: the bot sees YES on the Rockets at $0.62 while NO is at $0.41. Total = $1.03 instead of $1.00. That’s a 3% risk-free profit. It enters automatically within milliseconds. -- Sentiment AI: scans Twitter (X) and news in real time. If something big breaks, it recalculates the probability in 2 seconds before the market reacts. -- Calendar + Volatility: 15–20 minutes before the game, volatility spikes. The bot takes positions early and closes after the first major move. Why sports is perfect? Sports O/U markets have clear paired contracts that should total exactly $1.00, but constant deviations create reliable arbitrage. This is exactly how [sovereign2013] built $3.35M. > A human physically cannot monitor 50+ markets at once, react in milliseconds, stay awake 24/7, avoid emotions after losses, and run Z-scores on 60 bars of data. > The bot does all of this in parallel without breaks. Manual trading is dying. The automation era has arrived. Start learning Claude now. If you’re interested in writing your own bot on Polymarket: Comment the word "BOT" Like and repost this post Follow me (so I can message you easly) And within 24 hours I will send you a full manual on how to build a bot that can earn $2,900+/month. Also SAVE this info and article.

slash1s

16,145 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

$FLNC Batteries, Energy Storage 3.8B Market cap My take: A spicy shorter-term "battery meta" play with a potential long-term "Amazon" thesis. $FLNC is in a capital-intensive expansion phase with thin margins generating billions in revenue but very little in net profit Key: This is a capital-intensive INTEGRATOR, not a battery manufacturer. They don't make lithium-ion batteries but rather procure them (roughly 50% from China and more recently aiming for 50% from USA). They provide large grid-scale battery integration into power systems with roles in: 🔹Advisory, procurement, & build-outs. 🔹AI driven battery fleet management software 🔹Long-term servicing ------------------------- THE "SCALE" Global Scale: Operates in 40+ markets with one of the largest deployed fleets of energy storage projects in the world. Credibility and Reach: Formed as a joint venture between Siemens (an industrial manufacturing giant) and AES (a global utility and power generator) with massive industry backing. Massive Backlog: As of their last report, their backlog was already enormous at ~$4.9 billion. They signed an additional ~$1.1 billion in new contracts after this last quarter ended (including two massive projects in Australia) Major Wins: They can operate at scale and were also just awarded Europe's largest ever BESS project (a massive 4 GWh system in Germany). ------------------------- THE "PROFIT PROBLEM" Wafer-Thin Margins: Out of $602.5 million of revenue in Q3 FY2025, their net income was just $6.9M (a ~1.1% net profit margin). (That 14% number you see is their GAAP Gross Margin, which is already thin, but I'd argue the net profit is the current story and why a company doing $2.6B in revenue is valued at $3.8B). Weak Guidance: FY2025 Adj. EBITDA guidance is just $0 to $20M despite forecasting over $2.6B in revenue. Trade Policy Risk: Highly exposed to US-China trade policy, which has weighed on profits. Roughly half of their battery cells come from China which hurts their tax credits. For these reasons they are strategically increasing their US sourcing now with a supply agreement with AESC for U.S. manufactured battery cells, primarily from AESC's facility in Tennessee. "Strong-ish" Growth: Revenue was up 24.7% YoY. This is good, but not explosive given the market's potential, and it's clearly not translating to the bottom line yet. For these reasons this is currently a smaller short term battery meta play for me that has shown very strong recent stock technical performance despite the significant broader market weakness. When institutions want a "cheap" de-risked pure battery play, I think they will reach for $FLNC. The long term potential case is that the story here is the classic "Amazon" model: Is $FLNC a company that's just in a capital-intensive expansion phase, or is it a low-margin business forever? For years, $AMZN wasn't highly profitable "on paper" as virtually all resources were spent on massive scaling. When the profit switch flipped, the stock exploded. $FLNC is in a similar "scale-at-all-costs" phase with the potential that servicing and software will be the future AWS higher margin story. Their pivot to US sourcing isn't just about "surviving" trade policy; it's about building a protected, high-growth, and potentially higher-margin business in the U.S. September 2025 saw their first shipment of U.S. domestic-content BESS systems. Depending on how this capital-intensive phase goes, they could evolve into a long-term play for me. If they survive the cash burn, scale successfully, and flip that profit switch, the "Amazon of batteries" thesis could play out. Relevance: $TSLA $EOSE $BE $GEV $STEM $ENS $GWH $ENS $TE $FSLR

$FLNC Batteries, Energy Storage 3.8B Market cap My take: A spicy shorter-term "battery meta" play with a potential long-term "Amazon" thesis. $FLNC is in a capital-intensive expansion phase with thin margins generating billions in revenue but very little in net profit Key: This is a capital-intensive INTEGRATOR, not a battery manufacturer. They don't make lithium-ion batteries but rather procure them (roughly 50% from China and more recently aiming for 50% from USA). They provide large grid-scale battery integration into power systems with roles in: 🔹Advisory, procurement, & build-outs. 🔹AI driven battery fleet management software 🔹Long-term servicing ------------------------- THE "SCALE" Global Scale: Operates in 40+ markets with one of the largest deployed fleets of energy storage projects in the world. Credibility and Reach: Formed as a joint venture between Siemens (an industrial manufacturing giant) and AES (a global utility and power generator) with massive industry backing. Massive Backlog: As of their last report, their backlog was already enormous at ~$4.9 billion. They signed an additional ~$1.1 billion in new contracts after this last quarter ended (including two massive projects in Australia) Major Wins: They can operate at scale and were also just awarded Europe's largest ever BESS project (a massive 4 GWh system in Germany). ------------------------- THE "PROFIT PROBLEM" Wafer-Thin Margins: Out of $602.5 million of revenue in Q3 FY2025, their net income was just $6.9M (a ~1.1% net profit margin). (That 14% number you see is their GAAP Gross Margin, which is already thin, but I'd argue the net profit is the current story and why a company doing $2.6B in revenue is valued at $3.8B). Weak Guidance: FY2025 Adj. EBITDA guidance is just $0 to $20M despite forecasting over $2.6B in revenue. Trade Policy Risk: Highly exposed to US-China trade policy, which has weighed on profits. Roughly half of their battery cells come from China which hurts their tax credits. For these reasons they are strategically increasing their US sourcing now with a supply agreement with AESC for U.S. manufactured battery cells, primarily from AESC's facility in Tennessee. "Strong-ish" Growth: Revenue was up 24.7% YoY. This is good, but not explosive given the market's potential, and it's clearly not translating to the bottom line yet. For these reasons this is currently a smaller short term battery meta play for me that has shown very strong recent stock technical performance despite the significant broader market weakness. When institutions want a "cheap" de-risked pure battery play, I think they will reach for $FLNC. The long term potential case is that the story here is the classic "Amazon" model: Is $FLNC a company that's just in a capital-intensive expansion phase, or is it a low-margin business forever? For years, $AMZN wasn't highly profitable "on paper" as virtually all resources were spent on massive scaling. When the profit switch flipped, the stock exploded. $FLNC is in a similar "scale-at-all-costs" phase with the potential that servicing and software will be the future AWS higher margin story. Their pivot to US sourcing isn't just about "surviving" trade policy; it's about building a protected, high-growth, and potentially higher-margin business in the U.S. September 2025 saw their first shipment of U.S. domestic-content BESS systems. Depending on how this capital-intensive phase goes, they could evolve into a long-term play for me. If they survive the cash burn, scale successfully, and flip that profit switch, the "Amazon of batteries" thesis could play out. Relevance: $TSLA $EOSE $BE $GEV $STEM $ENS $GWH $ENS $TE $FSLR

YeahDave

27,279 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten

🚨 WARNING: TOMORROW WILL BE THE WORST DAY OF 2026!! JPMorgan will dump $165 BILLION in U.S. stocks right after the market opens. If you think this is a "drop in the ocean" and it won’t affect the markets... YOU ARE COMPLETELY WRONG. Every time JP Morgan sells stocks, the S&P 500 drops 10–20%. And this isn't just about the stock market. It's about liquidity. It's about investor sentiment. And it's about a market that isn't prepared for what's coming. Let me explain: JPMorgan isn't some retail trader taking profits. It's one of the largest and most influential financial institutions on the planet. When they move capital at scale, markets pay attention. And history shows that large institutional selling rarely happens in a vacuum. It usually signals something bigger. A shift in risk appetite. A change in liquidity conditions. Or growing concerns beneath the surface that most investors haven't recognized yet. Now here's the part almost nobody talks about. The direct impact isn't limited to the stocks being sold. Because when a major institution dumps billions of dollars worth of equities, it affects sentiment across the entire market. Selling creates more selling. Liquidity gets thinner. Volatility increases. And risk assets everywhere start to feel the pressure. That's why this isn't just an S&P 500 story. The S&P 500 is the first domino. But the effects will spread into AI stocks. International equities. Commodities. Credit markets. And even digital assets. Today, people are positioned for stability. They're positioned for higher prices. They're positioned for the rally to continue. Which means they're vulnerable if liquidity suddenly moves in the opposite direction. THIS IS THE WARNING. Not because one institution is selling. But because markets often underestimate what large-scale institutional selling can trigger. The risk isn't the transaction itself. The risk is how everyone else reacts to it. Markets aren't pricing that possibility today. But eventually, they will. I've spent more than a decade studying macro and market cycles. I've called some of the biggest market tops and bottoms of the past 10+ years. And I'll call the next market crash in 2026 before the crowd sees it coming. Follow and turn notifications on. I'll post my next market call here first.

🚨 WARNING: TOMORROW WILL BE THE WORST DAY OF 2026!! JPMorgan will dump $165 BILLION in U.S. stocks right after the market opens. If you think this is a "drop in the ocean" and it won’t affect the markets... YOU ARE COMPLETELY WRONG. Every time JP Morgan sells stocks, the S&P 500 drops 10–20%. And this isn't just about the stock market. It's about liquidity. It's about investor sentiment. And it's about a market that isn't prepared for what's coming. Let me explain: JPMorgan isn't some retail trader taking profits. It's one of the largest and most influential financial institutions on the planet. When they move capital at scale, markets pay attention. And history shows that large institutional selling rarely happens in a vacuum. It usually signals something bigger. A shift in risk appetite. A change in liquidity conditions. Or growing concerns beneath the surface that most investors haven't recognized yet. Now here's the part almost nobody talks about. The direct impact isn't limited to the stocks being sold. Because when a major institution dumps billions of dollars worth of equities, it affects sentiment across the entire market. Selling creates more selling. Liquidity gets thinner. Volatility increases. And risk assets everywhere start to feel the pressure. That's why this isn't just an S&P 500 story. The S&P 500 is the first domino. But the effects will spread into AI stocks. International equities. Commodities. Credit markets. And even digital assets. Today, people are positioned for stability. They're positioned for higher prices. They're positioned for the rally to continue. Which means they're vulnerable if liquidity suddenly moves in the opposite direction. THIS IS THE WARNING. Not because one institution is selling. But because markets often underestimate what large-scale institutional selling can trigger. The risk isn't the transaction itself. The risk is how everyone else reacts to it. Markets aren't pricing that possibility today. But eventually, they will. I've spent more than a decade studying macro and market cycles. I've called some of the biggest market tops and bottoms of the past 10+ years. And I'll call the next market crash in 2026 before the crowd sees it coming. Follow and turn notifications on. I'll post my next market call here first.

0xNobler

375,946 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Ukrainian strikes on Russian oil refineries have reduced gasoline production in Russia by approximately a quarter compared to June of last year, while emergency shutdowns at plants have also decreased exports of petroleum products. For the first time in many years, Moscow is preparing to import gasoline by sea, and the government has established a separate interagency task force to ensure fuel supplies to the regions. On June 28, Putin stated that the top priority for fuel distribution is the army and support for the agricultural sector ahead of the harvest. According to estimates from the Russian ministry of agriculture, the country requires about 4.7 million tons of diesel fuel and 630-690 thousand tons of gasoline annually to carry out all seasonal field work. The spring sowing campaign has already consumed nearly 2 million tons of diesel. Harvesting, autumn field work, and grain transportation require another approximately 2-3 million tons of diesel, with peak demand concentrated in July-September. Putin claims that current gasoline reserves stand at around 1.7 million tons. We know Putin constantly lies, but even these volumes are insufficient to simultaneously meet military needs, the agricultural sector, and civilian market demand without additional resource redistribution. Let’s see if Putin can get help from abroad. Belarus is the most accessible source of supply. Throughout 2025-2026, Minsk has increased deliveries of gasoline and diesel to Russia to several tens of thousands of tons per month. However, Belarus’s capabilities are limited by its two oil refineries and its own domestic demand. Even a significant increase in exports would cover only a small portion of Russia’s seasonal needs. Kazakhstan is considering supplying Russia with about 50 thousand tons of AI-92 gasoline. At the same time, the country is carrying out repairs at the Atyrau Refinery, entering its own high-demand harvest season, and maintains export restrictions on gasoline and diesel. Even if the delivery occurs, its volume will not have a significant impact on the overall balance of the Russian market. China theoretically has the greatest potential to help Russia. According to expert estimates, Chinese companies could supply up to 350 thousand tons of gasoline and about 100 thousand tons of diesel per month. However, the main obstacle remains financial settlements, particularly the risk of secondary sanctions. Sea imports from Asia can only be used as a temporary measure. They are more expensive than domestic production, require more complex logistics, and cannot quickly compensate for the losses from major Russian refineries. The geographical factor must also be taken into account. Supplies from China can primarily cover the Far East and parts of Eastern Siberia. Sea imports would arrive at western ports. Meanwhile, the greatest need for diesel fuel is in the agricultural regions of European Russia - the Central Black Earth region, the Volga region, Krasnodar region, Rostov region, and Stavropol region - where harvesting is underway and the main grain production is concentrated. However, Ukrainian strikes target not only refineries but also oil depots. This means that even with increased imports, there will be nowhere to store large volumes of fuel. ‼️ Thus, external assistance will not save Russia from a fuel shortage. What Russia can do - and is already doing - is to lower fuel quality requirements, allowing the production of gasoline and diesel to lower environmental standards. In parallel, the Russian government is already discussing the possibility of a complete ban on diesel exports. There will not be enough gasoline and diesel for everyone in Russia, but according to Putin, there will definitely be enough for the army. And therefore, Ukrainian drones still have a sufficiently long list of targets.

Ukrainian strikes on Russian oil refineries have reduced gasoline production in Russia by approximately a quarter compared to June of last year, while emergency shutdowns at plants have also decreased exports of petroleum products. For the first time in many years, Moscow is preparing to import gasoline by sea, and the government has established a separate interagency task force to ensure fuel supplies to the regions. On June 28, Putin stated that the top priority for fuel distribution is the army and support for the agricultural sector ahead of the harvest. According to estimates from the Russian ministry of agriculture, the country requires about 4.7 million tons of diesel fuel and 630-690 thousand tons of gasoline annually to carry out all seasonal field work. The spring sowing campaign has already consumed nearly 2 million tons of diesel. Harvesting, autumn field work, and grain transportation require another approximately 2-3 million tons of diesel, with peak demand concentrated in July-September. Putin claims that current gasoline reserves stand at around 1.7 million tons. We know Putin constantly lies, but even these volumes are insufficient to simultaneously meet military needs, the agricultural sector, and civilian market demand without additional resource redistribution. Let’s see if Putin can get help from abroad. Belarus is the most accessible source of supply. Throughout 2025-2026, Minsk has increased deliveries of gasoline and diesel to Russia to several tens of thousands of tons per month. However, Belarus’s capabilities are limited by its two oil refineries and its own domestic demand. Even a significant increase in exports would cover only a small portion of Russia’s seasonal needs. Kazakhstan is considering supplying Russia with about 50 thousand tons of AI-92 gasoline. At the same time, the country is carrying out repairs at the Atyrau Refinery, entering its own high-demand harvest season, and maintains export restrictions on gasoline and diesel. Even if the delivery occurs, its volume will not have a significant impact on the overall balance of the Russian market. China theoretically has the greatest potential to help Russia. According to expert estimates, Chinese companies could supply up to 350 thousand tons of gasoline and about 100 thousand tons of diesel per month. However, the main obstacle remains financial settlements, particularly the risk of secondary sanctions. Sea imports from Asia can only be used as a temporary measure. They are more expensive than domestic production, require more complex logistics, and cannot quickly compensate for the losses from major Russian refineries. The geographical factor must also be taken into account. Supplies from China can primarily cover the Far East and parts of Eastern Siberia. Sea imports would arrive at western ports. Meanwhile, the greatest need for diesel fuel is in the agricultural regions of European Russia - the Central Black Earth region, the Volga region, Krasnodar region, Rostov region, and Stavropol region - where harvesting is underway and the main grain production is concentrated. However, Ukrainian strikes target not only refineries but also oil depots. This means that even with increased imports, there will be nowhere to store large volumes of fuel. ‼️ Thus, external assistance will not save Russia from a fuel shortage. What Russia can do - and is already doing - is to lower fuel quality requirements, allowing the production of gasoline and diesel to lower environmental standards. In parallel, the Russian government is already discussing the possibility of a complete ban on diesel exports. There will not be enough gasoline and diesel for everyone in Russia, but according to Putin, there will definitely be enough for the army. And therefore, Ukrainian drones still have a sufficiently long list of targets.

Anton Gerashchenko

83,908 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

🚨 $SPCX IS NEXT BLACK SWAN The biggest IPO in history just started cracking $75 billion raised on June 12. Bigger than Saudi Aramco. Bigger than anything, ever Six days later: $225 → $191. Down ~15% in 48 hours And the real catalyst hasn't even hit Market just got its newest blue chip It might be its next black swan Here's what nobody's pricing in SpaceX didn't sell you a stock. It sold you a countdown The lockup isn't one cliff. It's staggered - by design First unlock: August 11. Right after Q2 earnings Up to 30% of insider shares. Into open market Then more. Every few weeks. August. September. October A slow, engineered bleed of supply Now connect dots SpaceX reserved up to 30% of the deal for retail. Unusually large Ask yourself one question. Why did they suddenly want YOU in? Because somebody needs buyers for what unlocks in August You're not the investor. You might be the exit Let that sink in And the math doesn't help $2.5 trillion. 6th most valuable company on earth Built on $18.7B in revenue and a $4.9B loss last year Over 100x sales. For a company bleeding billions We've seen this movie Facebook IPO'd at $38 in May 2012 By September: under $18. Cut in half - as lockups expired and insiders sold Same script. Bigger stage. A company this size doesn't fall alone But here's the part nobody's saying This isn't just doom. It's a setup First flush - toward $150, maybe sub-$100 on unlock Then base. Weeks of boring chop while retail gives up Then move. New highs. $260+ Real money isn't made shorting top. It's made loading base Your homework: watch August 11. Watch float. Watch how people feel Bottom won't be a price. It'll be a feeling - day last bull goes quiet This isn't caution. This is map You're early or you're exit. There's no third option IMPORTANT: I called every major $SPX selloff, 2025 $BTC ATH and move from $126k → $60k If you missed those calls - no worries, next ones are already setting up... Turn on notifications - next market calls are already cooking $SPCX

🚨 $SPCX IS NEXT BLACK SWAN The biggest IPO in history just started cracking $75 billion raised on June 12. Bigger than Saudi Aramco. Bigger than anything, ever Six days later: $225 → $191. Down ~15% in 48 hours And the real catalyst hasn't even hit Market just got its newest blue chip It might be its next black swan Here's what nobody's pricing in SpaceX didn't sell you a stock. It sold you a countdown The lockup isn't one cliff. It's staggered - by design First unlock: August 11. Right after Q2 earnings Up to 30% of insider shares. Into open market Then more. Every few weeks. August. September. October A slow, engineered bleed of supply Now connect dots SpaceX reserved up to 30% of the deal for retail. Unusually large Ask yourself one question. Why did they suddenly want YOU in? Because somebody needs buyers for what unlocks in August You're not the investor. You might be the exit Let that sink in And the math doesn't help $2.5 trillion. 6th most valuable company on earth Built on $18.7B in revenue and a $4.9B loss last year Over 100x sales. For a company bleeding billions We've seen this movie Facebook IPO'd at $38 in May 2012 By September: under $18. Cut in half - as lockups expired and insiders sold Same script. Bigger stage. A company this size doesn't fall alone But here's the part nobody's saying This isn't just doom. It's a setup First flush - toward $150, maybe sub-$100 on unlock Then base. Weeks of boring chop while retail gives up Then move. New highs. $260+ Real money isn't made shorting top. It's made loading base Your homework: watch August 11. Watch float. Watch how people feel Bottom won't be a price. It'll be a feeling - day last bull goes quiet This isn't caution. This is map You're early or you're exit. There's no third option IMPORTANT: I called every major $SPX selloff, 2025 $BTC ATH and move from $126k → $60k If you missed those calls - no worries, next ones are already setting up... Turn on notifications - next market calls are already cooking $SPCX

Aralez 🐕

374,765 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

🚨 WARNING: THE WORST DAY OF 2026 IS TOMORROW. JPMorgan is preparing to dump $165,000,000,000 into the market right at open. Thinking this won’t move the market? You’re in for the rudest awakening of your life. Every time JP Morgan sells stocks, the S&P 500 drops 10–20%. And this isn't just about the stock market. It's about liquidity. It's about investor sentiment. And it's about a market that isn't prepared for what's coming. Let me explain: JPMorgan isn't some retail trader taking profits. It's one of the largest and most influential financial institutions on the planet. When they move capital at scale, markets pay attention. And history shows that large institutional selling rarely happens in a vacuum. It usually signals something bigger. A shift in risk appetite. A change in liquidity conditions. Or growing concerns beneath the surface that most investors haven't recognized yet. Now here's the part almost nobody talks about. The direct impact isn't limited to the stocks being sold. Because when a major institution dumps billions of dollars worth of equities, it affects sentiment across the entire market. Selling creates more selling. Liquidity gets thinner. Volatility increases. And risk assets everywhere start to feel the pressure. That's why this isn't just an S&P 500 story. The S&P 500 is the first domino. But the effects will spread into AI stocks. International equities. Commodities. Credit markets. And even digital assets. Today, people are positioned for stability. They're positioned for higher prices. They're positioned for the rally to continue. Which means they're vulnerable if liquidity suddenly moves in the opposite direction. THIS IS THE WARNING. Not because one institution is selling. But because markets often underestimate what large-scale institutional selling can trigger. The risk isn't the transaction itself. The risk is how everyone else reacts to it. Markets aren't pricing that possibility today. But eventually, they will. I've spent more than a decade studying macro and market cycles. I've called some of the biggest market tops and bottoms of the past 10+ years. And I'll call the next market crash in 2026 before the crowd sees it coming. Follow and turn notifications on. I'll post my next market call here first.

🚨 WARNING: THE WORST DAY OF 2026 IS TOMORROW. JPMorgan is preparing to dump $165,000,000,000 into the market right at open. Thinking this won’t move the market? You’re in for the rudest awakening of your life. Every time JP Morgan sells stocks, the S&P 500 drops 10–20%. And this isn't just about the stock market. It's about liquidity. It's about investor sentiment. And it's about a market that isn't prepared for what's coming. Let me explain: JPMorgan isn't some retail trader taking profits. It's one of the largest and most influential financial institutions on the planet. When they move capital at scale, markets pay attention. And history shows that large institutional selling rarely happens in a vacuum. It usually signals something bigger. A shift in risk appetite. A change in liquidity conditions. Or growing concerns beneath the surface that most investors haven't recognized yet. Now here's the part almost nobody talks about. The direct impact isn't limited to the stocks being sold. Because when a major institution dumps billions of dollars worth of equities, it affects sentiment across the entire market. Selling creates more selling. Liquidity gets thinner. Volatility increases. And risk assets everywhere start to feel the pressure. That's why this isn't just an S&P 500 story. The S&P 500 is the first domino. But the effects will spread into AI stocks. International equities. Commodities. Credit markets. And even digital assets. Today, people are positioned for stability. They're positioned for higher prices. They're positioned for the rally to continue. Which means they're vulnerable if liquidity suddenly moves in the opposite direction. THIS IS THE WARNING. Not because one institution is selling. But because markets often underestimate what large-scale institutional selling can trigger. The risk isn't the transaction itself. The risk is how everyone else reacts to it. Markets aren't pricing that possibility today. But eventually, they will. I've spent more than a decade studying macro and market cycles. I've called some of the biggest market tops and bottoms of the past 10+ years. And I'll call the next market crash in 2026 before the crowd sees it coming. Follow and turn notifications on. I'll post my next market call here first.

WhaleTwits

340,862 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

This is the most SHAMELESS structural manipulation of a major index I've ever seen. SpaceX is preparing what could be the largest IPO in history. Target valuation: $1.75 trillion. That would make it the sixth-largest company in America on day one. And Nasdaq wants the listing so badly they're literally CHANGING how the Nasdaq-100 works. In February, Nasdaq published a "consultation" proposing sweeping changes to how companies enter the index. The timing is pure coincidence, of course. Just like it's pure coincidence that SpaceX has reportedly made fast index inclusion a CONDITION of listing on Nasdaq. Here's what they're proposing: A new "Fast Entry" rule would let any newly listed company whose market cap ranks in the top 40 of current Nasdaq-100 members get added to the index after just 15 trading days. No seasoning period. No liquidity requirements. Completely exempt from the standards every other company had to meet. Currently, new public companies typically wait up to a year before they're eligible for major index inclusion. That waiting period exists for a reason. It lets the market establish real price discovery. It protects passive investors from being forced into untested, illiquid stocks. And Nasdaq wants to throw all of that out. For ONE listing. But the Fast Entry rule isn't even the worst part... The real scandal is the 5x float multiplier. Right now, the S&P 500 uses a free-float adjusted methodology. If only 5% of a company's shares are available for public trading, the index weights you at 5% of total market cap. That's common sense. You weight a company based on what investors can actually buy. Nasdaq's current methodology already uses total market cap rather than free-float for weighting. But for very low-float stocks, they at least had a 10% minimum float threshold. Under the new proposal, that threshold DISAPPEARS entirely. Instead, any stock with less than 20% free float gets weighted at FIVE TIMES its actual float percentage, capped at 100%. Do the math on SpaceX: If SpaceX IPOs at $1.75 trillion and floats 5% of its shares, there would be roughly $87.5 billion worth of stock available for public trading. Under Nasdaq's proposed 5x multiplier, the index would weight SpaceX at 25% of its total market cap. That means passive funds would be forced to buy as if SpaceX were a $437.5 billion company. But only $87.5 billion of stock actually exists in the market. You are forcing hundreds of billions in passive buying into a $87.5 billion float. QQQ alone manages nearly $400 billion. The total Nasdaq-100 ecosystem represents over $1.4 trillion in exposure across ETFs, mutual funds, structured notes, and derivatives. Every single passive vehicle tracking this index would be REQUIRED to buy SpaceX at whatever price the market dictates. On Day 15. With zero price discovery. Zero track record as a public company. And a float so thin you could read through it. So what this actually does is it creates a structural wealth transfer mechanism. The passive bid from index funds pushes the stock price higher. That higher price benefits exactly one group of people: the insiders and early investors who own the other 95% of the shares. And when lock-up periods expire 90 to 180 days later? Those insiders sell into the artificially inflated passive bid. Your 401(k) is the exit liquidity. This is the fundamental corruption of indexing. Indexing used to be brilliant. Low cost. Efficient. You were free-riding on the price discovery done by active managers. The index reflected the market. Now the index IS the market. Trillions of dollars flow blindly into whatever the index tells them to buy. And the people who control the index methodology are changing the rules to serve the interests of a single IPO candidate. The S&P 500 requires companies to have at least 50% of shares available for public trading. It requires 6 to 12 months of seasoning. It uses free-float adjusted weighting so passive investors aren't buying phantom liquidity. Nasdaq is doing the exact opposite. 15 days. No float requirement. 5x multiplier on insider-held shares. Every passive investor in QQQ, QQQM, and every fund benchmarked to the Nasdaq-100 should understand what's about to happen: The rules are being rewritten to benefit IPO issuers and early-stage insiders, and your capital is the tool being USED to enrich them. 45 years in this business and I've watched Wall Street find creative new ways to separate retail investors from their money in every cycle. But usually they at least try to be subtle about it. This one they put in a PDF and called it a "consultation." What's your take?

This is the most SHAMELESS structural manipulation of a major index I've ever seen. SpaceX is preparing what could be the largest IPO in history. Target valuation: $1.75 trillion. That would make it the sixth-largest company in America on day one. And Nasdaq wants the listing so badly they're literally CHANGING how the Nasdaq-100 works. In February, Nasdaq published a "consultation" proposing sweeping changes to how companies enter the index. The timing is pure coincidence, of course. Just like it's pure coincidence that SpaceX has reportedly made fast index inclusion a CONDITION of listing on Nasdaq. Here's what they're proposing: A new "Fast Entry" rule would let any newly listed company whose market cap ranks in the top 40 of current Nasdaq-100 members get added to the index after just 15 trading days. No seasoning period. No liquidity requirements. Completely exempt from the standards every other company had to meet. Currently, new public companies typically wait up to a year before they're eligible for major index inclusion. That waiting period exists for a reason. It lets the market establish real price discovery. It protects passive investors from being forced into untested, illiquid stocks. And Nasdaq wants to throw all of that out. For ONE listing. But the Fast Entry rule isn't even the worst part... The real scandal is the 5x float multiplier. Right now, the S&P 500 uses a free-float adjusted methodology. If only 5% of a company's shares are available for public trading, the index weights you at 5% of total market cap. That's common sense. You weight a company based on what investors can actually buy. Nasdaq's current methodology already uses total market cap rather than free-float for weighting. But for very low-float stocks, they at least had a 10% minimum float threshold. Under the new proposal, that threshold DISAPPEARS entirely. Instead, any stock with less than 20% free float gets weighted at FIVE TIMES its actual float percentage, capped at 100%. Do the math on SpaceX: If SpaceX IPOs at $1.75 trillion and floats 5% of its shares, there would be roughly $87.5 billion worth of stock available for public trading. Under Nasdaq's proposed 5x multiplier, the index would weight SpaceX at 25% of its total market cap. That means passive funds would be forced to buy as if SpaceX were a $437.5 billion company. But only $87.5 billion of stock actually exists in the market. You are forcing hundreds of billions in passive buying into a $87.5 billion float. QQQ alone manages nearly $400 billion. The total Nasdaq-100 ecosystem represents over $1.4 trillion in exposure across ETFs, mutual funds, structured notes, and derivatives. Every single passive vehicle tracking this index would be REQUIRED to buy SpaceX at whatever price the market dictates. On Day 15. With zero price discovery. Zero track record as a public company. And a float so thin you could read through it. So what this actually does is it creates a structural wealth transfer mechanism. The passive bid from index funds pushes the stock price higher. That higher price benefits exactly one group of people: the insiders and early investors who own the other 95% of the shares. And when lock-up periods expire 90 to 180 days later? Those insiders sell into the artificially inflated passive bid. Your 401(k) is the exit liquidity. This is the fundamental corruption of indexing. Indexing used to be brilliant. Low cost. Efficient. You were free-riding on the price discovery done by active managers. The index reflected the market. Now the index IS the market. Trillions of dollars flow blindly into whatever the index tells them to buy. And the people who control the index methodology are changing the rules to serve the interests of a single IPO candidate. The S&P 500 requires companies to have at least 50% of shares available for public trading. It requires 6 to 12 months of seasoning. It uses free-float adjusted weighting so passive investors aren't buying phantom liquidity. Nasdaq is doing the exact opposite. 15 days. No float requirement. 5x multiplier on insider-held shares. Every passive investor in QQQ, QQQM, and every fund benchmarked to the Nasdaq-100 should understand what's about to happen: The rules are being rewritten to benefit IPO issuers and early-stage insiders, and your capital is the tool being USED to enrich them. 45 years in this business and I've watched Wall Street find creative new ways to separate retail investors from their money in every cycle. But usually they at least try to be subtle about it. This one they put in a PDF and called it a "consultation." What's your take?

George Noble

869,693 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

a hotel front desk clerk in nashville figured out why markets move exactly when they do not direction, not news - the actual mechanism of why a move happens at all he works overnight shift, 11pm to 7am. lobby goes quiet after midnight, nothing but a monitor and a wifi connection question that started it: why does volatility cluster he'd read it in passing - options dealers cause price moves they didn't intend spent 6 hours across two nights searching, wrote everything into a google doc called "options thing" here's what he found when you buy a call option from a dealer, dealer has a new problem. they sold you the right to buy shares at a certain price if stock moves up, your option gains value and dealer owes you money. to protect themselves they have to buy shares immediately - no discretion, no delay amount they have to buy at every price level is published every second for free - it's open interest on the options chain. every brokerage shows it he built a spreadsheet every morning at 9:29am, one minute before open, he pulled SPY's options chain and calculated where dealers were most exposed marked strikes with heaviest call open interest. watched what happened in first 30 minutes of trading day 12 he stopped breathing for a second price moved to the strike with heaviest dealer exposure 73% of the time in the first 45 minutes not because of a chart pattern, not because of any signal because 400 dealers ran the same hedge calculation at open, and all of them had to buy the same shares at the same time he started calling it gravity price pulls toward certain strikes when dealer positioning is heavy enough - not prediction, mechanics math has a name: gamma exposure, or GEX SpotGamma built a whole company surfacing it. Squeeze Metrics published an academic paper on mechanics in 2018 python implementation is around 400 lines, nothing but the options chain you already have he built it in google colab over 3 weekends, free, working only on nights the lobby was empty tracked it against 60 days of live SPY data on negative GEX days - dealers short gamma, forced to amplify moves - average daily range expanded 2.8x on positive GEX days, 63% of sessions closed within half a percent of open this is not a signal. it's a regime classifier negative GEX: something moves big today, whichever direction gets started. buy straddles, size up, let dealers carry it positive GEX: nothing moves today. dealers kill every attempt before it gets 2 points sell premium, collect theta, sleep at month 4 he went live. $4,200 account, pure options, no directional bet six months later: $4,200 became $19,800 he still works overnight shift. told me about it in the lobby at 3am when i asked what he was typing google doc still says "options thing" - he never renamed it i asked why he never shared this. he looked at the lobby doors and said "who would believe a hotel clerk" data is free, formula is public, wall street has run this since 2017 they assumed retail would never think to read options flow as a mechanical map of where price has to go they were right about retail. they weren't right about him bookmark this and go build it market tells you exactly where it's going. you just have to stop reading the wrong layer Write your thought below

a hotel front desk clerk in nashville figured out why markets move exactly when they do not direction, not news - the actual mechanism of why a move happens at all he works overnight shift, 11pm to 7am. lobby goes quiet after midnight, nothing but a monitor and a wifi connection question that started it: why does volatility cluster he'd read it in passing - options dealers cause price moves they didn't intend spent 6 hours across two nights searching, wrote everything into a google doc called "options thing" here's what he found when you buy a call option from a dealer, dealer has a new problem. they sold you the right to buy shares at a certain price if stock moves up, your option gains value and dealer owes you money. to protect themselves they have to buy shares immediately - no discretion, no delay amount they have to buy at every price level is published every second for free - it's open interest on the options chain. every brokerage shows it he built a spreadsheet every morning at 9:29am, one minute before open, he pulled SPY's options chain and calculated where dealers were most exposed marked strikes with heaviest call open interest. watched what happened in first 30 minutes of trading day 12 he stopped breathing for a second price moved to the strike with heaviest dealer exposure 73% of the time in the first 45 minutes not because of a chart pattern, not because of any signal because 400 dealers ran the same hedge calculation at open, and all of them had to buy the same shares at the same time he started calling it gravity price pulls toward certain strikes when dealer positioning is heavy enough - not prediction, mechanics math has a name: gamma exposure, or GEX SpotGamma built a whole company surfacing it. Squeeze Metrics published an academic paper on mechanics in 2018 python implementation is around 400 lines, nothing but the options chain you already have he built it in google colab over 3 weekends, free, working only on nights the lobby was empty tracked it against 60 days of live SPY data on negative GEX days - dealers short gamma, forced to amplify moves - average daily range expanded 2.8x on positive GEX days, 63% of sessions closed within half a percent of open this is not a signal. it's a regime classifier negative GEX: something moves big today, whichever direction gets started. buy straddles, size up, let dealers carry it positive GEX: nothing moves today. dealers kill every attempt before it gets 2 points sell premium, collect theta, sleep at month 4 he went live. $4,200 account, pure options, no directional bet six months later: $4,200 became $19,800 he still works overnight shift. told me about it in the lobby at 3am when i asked what he was typing google doc still says "options thing" - he never renamed it i asked why he never shared this. he looked at the lobby doors and said "who would believe a hotel clerk" data is free, formula is public, wall street has run this since 2017 they assumed retail would never think to read options flow as a mechanical map of where price has to go they were right about retail. they weren't right about him bookmark this and go build it market tells you exactly where it's going. you just have to stop reading the wrong layer Write your thought below

Livsun

201,508 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

GOLD PRICE SLIDES BUT SWISS GOLD DEMAND EXPLODES: NEGATIVE RATES THREAT RETURNS AS CITIZENS FLEE TO PHYSICAL GOLD Gold prices have fallen steadily for weeks after January's record peak, yet Swiss gold dealers report customers lining up in numbers not seen for a long time. People are treating the lower prices as a chance to buy rather than a reason to stay away. This surge arrives just days before the Swiss National Bank delivers its key rate decision on June 18, a move that could change what happens to savings sitting in bank accounts across the country. THE GOLD PRICE PARADOX ➡️ Gold currently costs around 108 Swiss francs per gram, with the ounce near 4,200 dollars, down slightly on easing Gulf news. ➡️ Many who bought near the top now sit on months of losses. ➡️ The drop has not scared buyers off. It has pulled them in because the metal simply costs less than it did six months ago. THE CENTRAL BANK SIGNAL ➡️ Private buyers are not acting alone. ➡️ Central banks in China, India, and Turkey have shifted large parts of their reserves from dollars into gold at a scale unseen in years. ➡️ When major states quietly move away from paper currencies they publicly defend, the action reveals more than any headline. THE ZERO RATE TRAP ➡️ The Swiss National Bank holds its key rate at zero percent, making new borrowing almost free. ➡️ Its director has stated the hurdle for negative rates is higher, yet the bank stands ready to reintroduce them if needed to fulfill its mandate. ➡️ Negative rates reverse the rules: savers pay the bank instead of earning interest on their money. THE STRONG FRANC PRESSURE ➡️ Tensions around the Strait of Hormuz have lifted the Swiss franc as a classic safe-haven currency. ➡️ A stronger franc makes Swiss exports more expensive abroad, squeezing pharmaceuticals, machinery, and watches. ➡️ Negative rates become one tool to ease that pressure, but the cost lands on ordinary savers. THE GOLD ATTRACTION ➡️ At zero or negative rates, money in bank accounts slowly loses value over time. ➡️ Gold does not depend on central bank rate decisions to protect its worth. ➡️ This difference explains why many now see physical metal as the clearer store of value. THE BOTTOM LINE The rush to physical gold in Switzerland while prices fall and the June 18 National Bank decision approaches shows a quiet shift toward assets that sit outside policy control. When official rates offer little or nothing, tangible gold becomes the alternative people actually reach for. Your savings account and the gold price are now linked through the same pressures. #SwissGold #GoldDemand #NegativeRates #SNB #June18 #StrongFranc #SafeHaven

GOLD PRICE SLIDES BUT SWISS GOLD DEMAND EXPLODES: NEGATIVE RATES THREAT RETURNS AS CITIZENS FLEE TO PHYSICAL GOLD Gold prices have fallen steadily for weeks after January's record peak, yet Swiss gold dealers report customers lining up in numbers not seen for a long time. People are treating the lower prices as a chance to buy rather than a reason to stay away. This surge arrives just days before the Swiss National Bank delivers its key rate decision on June 18, a move that could change what happens to savings sitting in bank accounts across the country. THE GOLD PRICE PARADOX ➡️ Gold currently costs around 108 Swiss francs per gram, with the ounce near 4,200 dollars, down slightly on easing Gulf news. ➡️ Many who bought near the top now sit on months of losses. ➡️ The drop has not scared buyers off. It has pulled them in because the metal simply costs less than it did six months ago. THE CENTRAL BANK SIGNAL ➡️ Private buyers are not acting alone. ➡️ Central banks in China, India, and Turkey have shifted large parts of their reserves from dollars into gold at a scale unseen in years. ➡️ When major states quietly move away from paper currencies they publicly defend, the action reveals more than any headline. THE ZERO RATE TRAP ➡️ The Swiss National Bank holds its key rate at zero percent, making new borrowing almost free. ➡️ Its director has stated the hurdle for negative rates is higher, yet the bank stands ready to reintroduce them if needed to fulfill its mandate. ➡️ Negative rates reverse the rules: savers pay the bank instead of earning interest on their money. THE STRONG FRANC PRESSURE ➡️ Tensions around the Strait of Hormuz have lifted the Swiss franc as a classic safe-haven currency. ➡️ A stronger franc makes Swiss exports more expensive abroad, squeezing pharmaceuticals, machinery, and watches. ➡️ Negative rates become one tool to ease that pressure, but the cost lands on ordinary savers. THE GOLD ATTRACTION ➡️ At zero or negative rates, money in bank accounts slowly loses value over time. ➡️ Gold does not depend on central bank rate decisions to protect its worth. ➡️ This difference explains why many now see physical metal as the clearer store of value. THE BOTTOM LINE The rush to physical gold in Switzerland while prices fall and the June 18 National Bank decision approaches shows a quiet shift toward assets that sit outside policy control. When official rates offer little or nothing, tangible gold becomes the alternative people actually reach for. Your savings account and the gold price are now linked through the same pressures. #SwissGold #GoldDemand #NegativeRates #SNB #June18 #StrongFranc #SafeHaven

Mark

27,978 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

🚨 THIS IS HOW AI BUBBLE WILL CRASH S&P 500 Read the post carefully before buying stocks 3 AI and space giants are going public in the same year with a combined valuation approaching $4 trillion: 1. The biggest IPO wave in decades - SpaceX could become the largest IPO in history, raising up to $75 billion( $SPCX will debut on Nasdaq on June 12) - OpenAI has already filed a confidential S-1 and is targeting a valuation above $1 trillion - Anthropic is also considering a public listing at a valuation of around $1 trillion 2. The S&P 500 is currently being carried mostly by the Mag 7 and AI-related stocks (Nvidia, Microsoft, Google, Amazon, etc.), which make up roughly 33-35% of the index These 3 IPO could create a massive liquidity drain as investors move $75-200+ billion into SpaceX, OpenAI, and Anthropic shares Funds and investors would likely sell existing positions in today's market leaders to free up capital, with Nvidia, Microsoft, and Google among the first likely to feel the pressure On top of that, the S&P 500 has so far resisted fast-tracking these unprofitable giants into the index, meaning the capital rotation effect could put even more pressure on existing index components 3. History shows a concerning pattern At the peak of every major market bubble, capital became concentrated in a small group of "can't lose" companies: - The Roaring Twenties - The Nifty Fifty era - Japan's 1980s asset bubble - The Dot-Com Bubble of 1999-2000 Today, capital concentration in the tech sector is once again near historical extremes 4. After an IPO, early investors get the opportunity to lock in profits Historically, lock-up expirations have often increased selling pressure on newly public stocks During the Dot-Com era, even some of the highest-quality companies suffered massive drawdowns: - Amazon: -95% - Microsoft: -65% - Intel: -80% - Oracle: -80% - Yahoo: -97% A great business doesn't protect investors from overvaluation IPOs at these kinds of valuations, while many AI companies are still deeply unprofitable, are often a sign of market euphoria I've said this before, and the cycle is still playing out exactly according to plan Turn on notifications and drop your thoughts below The next phase is gonna be very important

🚨 THIS IS HOW AI BUBBLE WILL CRASH S&P 500 Read the post carefully before buying stocks 3 AI and space giants are going public in the same year with a combined valuation approaching $4 trillion: 1. The biggest IPO wave in decades - SpaceX could become the largest IPO in history, raising up to $75 billion( $SPCX will debut on Nasdaq on June 12) - OpenAI has already filed a confidential S-1 and is targeting a valuation above $1 trillion - Anthropic is also considering a public listing at a valuation of around $1 trillion 2. The S&P 500 is currently being carried mostly by the Mag 7 and AI-related stocks (Nvidia, Microsoft, Google, Amazon, etc.), which make up roughly 33-35% of the index These 3 IPO could create a massive liquidity drain as investors move $75-200+ billion into SpaceX, OpenAI, and Anthropic shares Funds and investors would likely sell existing positions in today's market leaders to free up capital, with Nvidia, Microsoft, and Google among the first likely to feel the pressure On top of that, the S&P 500 has so far resisted fast-tracking these unprofitable giants into the index, meaning the capital rotation effect could put even more pressure on existing index components 3. History shows a concerning pattern At the peak of every major market bubble, capital became concentrated in a small group of "can't lose" companies: - The Roaring Twenties - The Nifty Fifty era - Japan's 1980s asset bubble - The Dot-Com Bubble of 1999-2000 Today, capital concentration in the tech sector is once again near historical extremes 4. After an IPO, early investors get the opportunity to lock in profits Historically, lock-up expirations have often increased selling pressure on newly public stocks During the Dot-Com era, even some of the highest-quality companies suffered massive drawdowns: - Amazon: -95% - Microsoft: -65% - Intel: -80% - Oracle: -80% - Yahoo: -97% A great business doesn't protect investors from overvaluation IPOs at these kinds of valuations, while many AI companies are still deeply unprofitable, are often a sign of market euphoria I've said this before, and the cycle is still playing out exactly according to plan Turn on notifications and drop your thoughts below The next phase is gonna be very important

Leni

551,974 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

I find this explanation of the Chinese system by Prof Keyu Jin (in a recent lecture at Harvard’s Fairbank center) absolutely fascinating. Keyu Jin is a professor of economics at LSE (London School of Economics) and serves on the board of companies like Credit Suisse. She’s also the daughter of Jin Liqun, former Vice Minister of finance of China so she’s a rare West-based academic (maybe even the only one) who actually has insight into the Chinese system from the inside. Essentially what she’s explaining is that a key reason why China was so successful economically is because of its decentralized nature, which creates two mutually compounding loops of competition, as opposed to one loop in the West. What does that mean? Well, contrary to popular belief that imagines China as being this centrally planned economy where almost everything is decided in Beijing, the inverse is actually true: China is actually one of the most decentralized countries in the world. To illustrate this, a metric that’s always amazed me is the fact that in China local governments (provinces, cities, villages, etc.) control a crazy 85% of the country's expenditures. On average that same metric for OECD countries is 33% (as in 64% of the expenditures are controlled at the federal/national level to China’s 15%). In the US for instance, which is already more decentralized than most given it’s a federation with states, only 45% of the country’s expenditures happen at the state and local level: almost twice less than in China! The effect of this, as Keyu Jin explains, is that provinces and larger municipalities in China have an immense degree of autonomy over the way they run their respective economies and fiercely compete with each other. This is the first loop. And then of course the second loop is that you have companies competing with each other in the market. As a result what constantly evolves in China is not only companies themselves but the environment in which they evolve: you constantly have this or that province running a new policy that proves very effective, making them gain an advantage vs other localities, initiative which is then copied by other localities. This makes the economic environment incredibly dynamic as it allows the state to move in unison with the economy, as opposed to slowing it down as is often the case in other countries. So what’s the role of the central government in all this? The key role, Keyu Jin argues, is setting broad objectives as well as personal management and promotion. And this is what makes the whole system work as therein lies the incentive for localities to compete with each other: because local officials know that if they do a better job than their peers, they’re on track for promotion by the central government. In “China Inc”, the central government is the board of directors and HR, presiding over an army of local CEOs with immense degrees of autonomy over their own “companies”. Keyu Jin gives the example of the solar industry. There was at some point (around 2005) a directive by the central government to develop the solar industry. The graph she shares in her talk is incredible: within a few years you had solar companies as well as patents related to research on solar technology pop up literally everywhere in China. With the result we all know about today: China today completely dominates the solar industry and solar technology (according to the International Energy Agency China's share in all the manufacturing stages of solar panels exceeds 80%). As she explains, this makes the Chinese system somewhat paradoxical as it is at the same time incredibly decentralized but also incredibly effective at mobilizing the country for centrally-decided objectives, in fact she goes as far as comparing this effectiveness to the country being in a constant state of “wartime mobilization”. An interesting comparison would be if you had all the countries in North America, the EU and North Africa (altogether roughly the population of China) all united under a common leadership deciding on common objectives and on the career path of all these countries’ officials, based on how well they achieve these objectives in their respective countries. We’re seeing this system being mobilized in its full strength today on leading edge semiconductors after US sanctions, and this is why these sanctions will undoubtedly ultimately prove so self-defeating: once the Chinese “wartime mobilization” machine is given an objective - and you can be sure this objective is prioritized very highly - the fight is essentially over, you can consider it done. Once you have hundreds of thousands of PhDs, companies and officials all at the same time competing and working within the same broad “China Inc” roof to make something happen, it will ultimately get done. If you want China NOT to develop a technology, the very last thing you want is to make them mobilize the full strength of the machine on it. With the sanctions the U.S. effectively told China: “please we beg you, do dedicate your formidable economic mobilization power to becoming a semiconductors powerhouse as fast as possible” 🤦 Another particularity of the system that Keyu Jin highlights - and I’ll end on this - is that this system also allows China to “allocate losses to certain groups of people, interest groups and sectors” in order to “enact system-level changes'', something she says is “very difficult for other governments with more political constraints to do”. For instance we’re seeing this play out in real-time with the real-estate industry: China recognized there was a housing bubble and Xi issued its “houses are for living in, not for speculation” directive. We’re since witnessing an engineered deflating of the bubble, ensuring to the extent possible that the losses are borne out by real estate developers and speculators, and not too much by society as a whole. This is part of the reason why China has never suffered a recession in the modern era: it does controlled demolition when necessary but tries to ensure it doesn’t suffer massive crises like we’ve repeatedly witnessed in the U.S. for instance. Of course no system is perfect. Weaknesses of the Chinese system include for instance local protectionism: there’s a perverse incentive for local officials to protect their local companies in order to give them a leg up vs companies from other provinces, which ultimately comes at the detriment of everyone. Another weakness is corruption, a sempiternal problem in China, where local officials - who are extremely powerful due to the nature of the system - will decide that getting promoted isn’t incentive enough and will try to cash in on their position of power. Cracking down on this is also a key remit of the central government and of course one of the major initiatives of Xi since he came to power. Lastly, another clear weakness is obviously that everything ultimately relies on the wisdom of what the system gets mobilized for, on the wisdom of these broader objectives coming from the central government. If they’re ill-thought, you effectively have a whole country working towards the wrong objectives… On this we’re often told that this problem doesn’t happen in countries where what the economy works towards is set more organically by the “invisible hand of the market” but if you think about it, it actually happens just the same as the “invisible hand of the market” actually equates “what’s good for shareholders” and what’s good for shareholders isn’t exactly always a perfect proxy for what’s good for society, to say the least... For instance it’s absolutely insane that we’ve just had 2-3 generations in the West where the best and brightest went to work for the finance industry to engineer ever more convoluted schemes to make money out of nothing, simply because it’s insanely profitable to do so. Anyone looking at this rationally can see it’s not exactly the best use of our precious human resources as a society… So all things considered, if I had to choose I’d much rather have our broad societal objectives set by human beings rather than by the theoretical concept of “what makes the most money deserves the most focus”. And as it turns out the Chinese system actually fares decently well against capitalism: human beings aren’t evidently too bad at deciding what human beings should work on if they’re being thoughtful and strategic about it.

I find this explanation of the Chinese system by Prof Keyu Jin (in a recent lecture at Harvard’s Fairbank center) absolutely fascinating. Keyu Jin is a professor of economics at LSE (London School of Economics) and serves on the board of companies like Credit Suisse. She’s also the daughter of Jin Liqun, former Vice Minister of finance of China so she’s a rare West-based academic (maybe even the only one) who actually has insight into the Chinese system from the inside. Essentially what she’s explaining is that a key reason why China was so successful economically is because of its decentralized nature, which creates two mutually compounding loops of competition, as opposed to one loop in the West. What does that mean? Well, contrary to popular belief that imagines China as being this centrally planned economy where almost everything is decided in Beijing, the inverse is actually true: China is actually one of the most decentralized countries in the world. To illustrate this, a metric that’s always amazed me is the fact that in China local governments (provinces, cities, villages, etc.) control a crazy 85% of the country's expenditures. On average that same metric for OECD countries is 33% (as in 64% of the expenditures are controlled at the federal/national level to China’s 15%). In the US for instance, which is already more decentralized than most given it’s a federation with states, only 45% of the country’s expenditures happen at the state and local level: almost twice less than in China! The effect of this, as Keyu Jin explains, is that provinces and larger municipalities in China have an immense degree of autonomy over the way they run their respective economies and fiercely compete with each other. This is the first loop. And then of course the second loop is that you have companies competing with each other in the market. As a result what constantly evolves in China is not only companies themselves but the environment in which they evolve: you constantly have this or that province running a new policy that proves very effective, making them gain an advantage vs other localities, initiative which is then copied by other localities. This makes the economic environment incredibly dynamic as it allows the state to move in unison with the economy, as opposed to slowing it down as is often the case in other countries. So what’s the role of the central government in all this? The key role, Keyu Jin argues, is setting broad objectives as well as personal management and promotion. And this is what makes the whole system work as therein lies the incentive for localities to compete with each other: because local officials know that if they do a better job than their peers, they’re on track for promotion by the central government. In “China Inc”, the central government is the board of directors and HR, presiding over an army of local CEOs with immense degrees of autonomy over their own “companies”. Keyu Jin gives the example of the solar industry. There was at some point (around 2005) a directive by the central government to develop the solar industry. The graph she shares in her talk is incredible: within a few years you had solar companies as well as patents related to research on solar technology pop up literally everywhere in China. With the result we all know about today: China today completely dominates the solar industry and solar technology (according to the International Energy Agency China's share in all the manufacturing stages of solar panels exceeds 80%). As she explains, this makes the Chinese system somewhat paradoxical as it is at the same time incredibly decentralized but also incredibly effective at mobilizing the country for centrally-decided objectives, in fact she goes as far as comparing this effectiveness to the country being in a constant state of “wartime mobilization”. An interesting comparison would be if you had all the countries in North America, the EU and North Africa (altogether roughly the population of China) all united under a common leadership deciding on common objectives and on the career path of all these countries’ officials, based on how well they achieve these objectives in their respective countries. We’re seeing this system being mobilized in its full strength today on leading edge semiconductors after US sanctions, and this is why these sanctions will undoubtedly ultimately prove so self-defeating: once the Chinese “wartime mobilization” machine is given an objective - and you can be sure this objective is prioritized very highly - the fight is essentially over, you can consider it done. Once you have hundreds of thousands of PhDs, companies and officials all at the same time competing and working within the same broad “China Inc” roof to make something happen, it will ultimately get done. If you want China NOT to develop a technology, the very last thing you want is to make them mobilize the full strength of the machine on it. With the sanctions the U.S. effectively told China: “please we beg you, do dedicate your formidable economic mobilization power to becoming a semiconductors powerhouse as fast as possible” 🤦 Another particularity of the system that Keyu Jin highlights - and I’ll end on this - is that this system also allows China to “allocate losses to certain groups of people, interest groups and sectors” in order to “enact system-level changes'', something she says is “very difficult for other governments with more political constraints to do”. For instance we’re seeing this play out in real-time with the real-estate industry: China recognized there was a housing bubble and Xi issued its “houses are for living in, not for speculation” directive. We’re since witnessing an engineered deflating of the bubble, ensuring to the extent possible that the losses are borne out by real estate developers and speculators, and not too much by society as a whole. This is part of the reason why China has never suffered a recession in the modern era: it does controlled demolition when necessary but tries to ensure it doesn’t suffer massive crises like we’ve repeatedly witnessed in the U.S. for instance. Of course no system is perfect. Weaknesses of the Chinese system include for instance local protectionism: there’s a perverse incentive for local officials to protect their local companies in order to give them a leg up vs companies from other provinces, which ultimately comes at the detriment of everyone. Another weakness is corruption, a sempiternal problem in China, where local officials - who are extremely powerful due to the nature of the system - will decide that getting promoted isn’t incentive enough and will try to cash in on their position of power. Cracking down on this is also a key remit of the central government and of course one of the major initiatives of Xi since he came to power. Lastly, another clear weakness is obviously that everything ultimately relies on the wisdom of what the system gets mobilized for, on the wisdom of these broader objectives coming from the central government. If they’re ill-thought, you effectively have a whole country working towards the wrong objectives… On this we’re often told that this problem doesn’t happen in countries where what the economy works towards is set more organically by the “invisible hand of the market” but if you think about it, it actually happens just the same as the “invisible hand of the market” actually equates “what’s good for shareholders” and what’s good for shareholders isn’t exactly always a perfect proxy for what’s good for society, to say the least... For instance it’s absolutely insane that we’ve just had 2-3 generations in the West where the best and brightest went to work for the finance industry to engineer ever more convoluted schemes to make money out of nothing, simply because it’s insanely profitable to do so. Anyone looking at this rationally can see it’s not exactly the best use of our precious human resources as a society… So all things considered, if I had to choose I’d much rather have our broad societal objectives set by human beings rather than by the theoretical concept of “what makes the most money deserves the most focus”. And as it turns out the Chinese system actually fares decently well against capitalism: human beings aren’t evidently too bad at deciding what human beings should work on if they’re being thoughtful and strategic about it.

Arnaud Bertrand

193,688 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

I JUST BROKE DOWN THE REAL NUMBERS ON TRUMP'S TARIFFS Everyone expected tariffs to reduce the current account deficit and restore US jobs. But the numbers tell a different story. China just posted a $1.2 trillion trade surplus in 2025. The biggest in history. Up 20% from 2024. And this happened DURING Trump's "maximum pressure" tariff campaign. Let's dive deeper: Early 2025: Tariffs on China escalated as high as 145%. Late 2025: A deal brought them down to the high-40s/low-50s range. January 2026: Trump threatens 25% tariffs on ANY country doing business with Iran. Iran's biggest trading partner? China. But here's the part nobody's talking about: The Tax Policy Center estimates the average tariff rate on ALL US imports is now 17%. The Budget Lab at Yale estimates these tariffs raised consumer prices by 1.2% - roughly $1,700 per household. In 2025, businesses absorbed most of these costs. But in 2026, they're passing them to consumers. The jobs data is worse: After the April 2025 tariff announcement, factory employment FELL by 68,000 jobs. The Federal Reserve found that tariff exposure in 2018-2019 reduced manufacturing employment by 1.4%. A small +0.3% protection effect was offset by -1.1% from higher input costs and -0.7% from retaliation. Even in optimistic scenarios, tariffs create very few jobs once you account for higher input costs destroying downstream employment and retaliation from trading partners. Trump's theory was that tariffs would force manufacturing back to the US. The reality: Companies just moved production to Vietnam, Mexico, and Malaysia. Supply chains didn't come home. They found cheaper routes around the tariffs. And China? Exports to the US fell 20%, but grew everywhere else. Africa: +26% Southeast Asia: +13% EU: +8% China maintained 14% of global exports. 4x more than India and Vietnam combined. Trump didn't destroy China's export machine. He redirected where it sells. Here's the fiscal reality: Trump claims tariffs will eliminate the deficit and eventually replace income taxes. Even in an optimistic scenario, tariffs will raise about $400 billion. The budget deficit last year? Over $2 trillion. Income tax revenue? Over $2 trillion. The math doesn't work. It's not even close. Now the legal problem: The Supreme Court is weighing whether Trump's tariffs were even legal under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Congressional researchers say importers paid roughly $129 billion in estimated duty deposits for IEEPA tariffs as of December 10, 2025. If the Court rules against Trump, that money potentially gets refunded. The entire tariff structure collapses. And nobody knows what happens next. Costco and major retailers have already filed lawsuits. Meanwhile, the EU is negotiating with China on "minimum price undertakings" to replace tariffs. Canada is considering dropping their 100% tariff on Chinese EVs. So Trump's pressure is pushing allies CLOSER to China, not away. These tariff policies are accelerating the transition to a tripolar world - US, China, and a European bloc increasingly willing to play both sides. Here's the ONE thing you have to understand: Markets can price risk. They cannot price uncertainty. Right now markets are complacent. The VIX is subdued. Credit spreads are tight. But if the Supreme Court rules against the tariffs, uncertainty escalates dramatically. No one knows what happens to the $195 billion already collected. No one knows if companies get refunds. No one knows what Trump's next move is if he loses this authority. Markets do not handle institutional uncertainty well. So are Trump's tariffs working? If working means reducing the deficit and creating US jobs, the answer is no. Tariffs can help a narrow slice of producers and raise revenue. But evidence shows they raise consumer prices and, on net, reduce manufacturing employment once you include input costs and retaliation. The next weeks will be crucial.

I JUST BROKE DOWN THE REAL NUMBERS ON TRUMP'S TARIFFS Everyone expected tariffs to reduce the current account deficit and restore US jobs. But the numbers tell a different story. China just posted a $1.2 trillion trade surplus in 2025. The biggest in history. Up 20% from 2024. And this happened DURING Trump's "maximum pressure" tariff campaign. Let's dive deeper: Early 2025: Tariffs on China escalated as high as 145%. Late 2025: A deal brought them down to the high-40s/low-50s range. January 2026: Trump threatens 25% tariffs on ANY country doing business with Iran. Iran's biggest trading partner? China. But here's the part nobody's talking about: The Tax Policy Center estimates the average tariff rate on ALL US imports is now 17%. The Budget Lab at Yale estimates these tariffs raised consumer prices by 1.2% - roughly $1,700 per household. In 2025, businesses absorbed most of these costs. But in 2026, they're passing them to consumers. The jobs data is worse: After the April 2025 tariff announcement, factory employment FELL by 68,000 jobs. The Federal Reserve found that tariff exposure in 2018-2019 reduced manufacturing employment by 1.4%. A small +0.3% protection effect was offset by -1.1% from higher input costs and -0.7% from retaliation. Even in optimistic scenarios, tariffs create very few jobs once you account for higher input costs destroying downstream employment and retaliation from trading partners. Trump's theory was that tariffs would force manufacturing back to the US. The reality: Companies just moved production to Vietnam, Mexico, and Malaysia. Supply chains didn't come home. They found cheaper routes around the tariffs. And China? Exports to the US fell 20%, but grew everywhere else. Africa: +26% Southeast Asia: +13% EU: +8% China maintained 14% of global exports. 4x more than India and Vietnam combined. Trump didn't destroy China's export machine. He redirected where it sells. Here's the fiscal reality: Trump claims tariffs will eliminate the deficit and eventually replace income taxes. Even in an optimistic scenario, tariffs will raise about $400 billion. The budget deficit last year? Over $2 trillion. Income tax revenue? Over $2 trillion. The math doesn't work. It's not even close. Now the legal problem: The Supreme Court is weighing whether Trump's tariffs were even legal under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Congressional researchers say importers paid roughly $129 billion in estimated duty deposits for IEEPA tariffs as of December 10, 2025. If the Court rules against Trump, that money potentially gets refunded. The entire tariff structure collapses. And nobody knows what happens next. Costco and major retailers have already filed lawsuits. Meanwhile, the EU is negotiating with China on "minimum price undertakings" to replace tariffs. Canada is considering dropping their 100% tariff on Chinese EVs. So Trump's pressure is pushing allies CLOSER to China, not away. These tariff policies are accelerating the transition to a tripolar world - US, China, and a European bloc increasingly willing to play both sides. Here's the ONE thing you have to understand: Markets can price risk. They cannot price uncertainty. Right now markets are complacent. The VIX is subdued. Credit spreads are tight. But if the Supreme Court rules against the tariffs, uncertainty escalates dramatically. No one knows what happens to the $195 billion already collected. No one knows if companies get refunds. No one knows what Trump's next move is if he loses this authority. Markets do not handle institutional uncertainty well. So are Trump's tariffs working? If working means reducing the deficit and creating US jobs, the answer is no. Tariffs can help a narrow slice of producers and raise revenue. But evidence shows they raise consumer prices and, on net, reduce manufacturing employment once you include input costs and retaliation. The next weeks will be crucial.

George Noble

90,666 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten